Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    224
    I think that would be a great pod. All are close and teams we have a history with.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by RJHokie View Post
    In the end, TV money may control the game. If Tech got double or triple the money it currently receives from conference distributions for switching leagues, I bet the administration would take a very hard look at that situation...
    And they would note just how much research grants dwarf that money, and choose to remain in the ACC where there are (a) more AAU members to help us gain admission, and (b) existing research partnerships with VT.

    We're not going anywhere. And it's the right (non-)move.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    July 03, 2001
    Posts
    101,198
    fallacy to link research $ and conf membership imo. Has VT's links to research with GT, NCSU, Duke, UNC, UVA... increased significantly since 2004? Are faculty members steered to partnerships with schools based on football teams (if so, I actually weep for America's future)? I don't think that is right no matter how many times it is written.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    November 26, 2006
    Posts
    2,914
    I would love this and hope this is our future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tex-Mex View Post
    Certainly not a stretch to imagine that this is what the SEC wants. The bigger question is, under what circumstances could VT be convinced to make the move?

    http://outkickthecoverage.com/secs-f...ns-of-four.php

  5. #15

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    1,514
    This argument of conference affiliation and academics is a big myth. VT's research grant revenue over the last 10-15 years has been virtually the same regardless of conference affiliation - VT has been in the 45-55 range on a consistent basis. Our largest research partnerships with other universities (UMD and WF) occurred when VT was in the BigEast and not the ACC. Additionally, traditional sources of University funding (grants, state $, tuition) are getting tighter and University Presidents and State Legislators are (or better be) looking to grow other sources of revenue. A University's entertainment (sports) portfolio is a growing revenue stream that most should be looking to maximize.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    Don't think we go anywhere, but this looks like the perfect 16 team conference.


    SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State.
    SEC North: VaTech, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky.
    SEC South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss.
    SEC West: LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Mizzou.

    That's some big money for vt to turn down, and a schedule of Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, while rotating in another division and 2 from a third wouldn't be too tough.

    Howabout this schedule?

    W&M
    ECU
    Tennessee
    @Vanderbilt
    Kentucky
    @Alabama
    Ole Miss
    @Mississippi State
    Auburn
    @Texas A&M
    Missouri
    @UVA

    VT could win 10 games. Even if you flip A&M and Mizzou for teams like Florida and UGA, VT could get 10 or so W's. Anyhow, Steger should take a long and hard look at such a proposal. Especially if your talking 50 mil/yr.
    It's perfect from the SEC standpoint too. They'd have a flagship or flagship equivalent in every southern state plus Texas and Missouri. I like the divisional breakdown you've layed out as well.

    The drawbacks I see would come from getting all the necessary votes, as Alabama didn't want to give up their annual game with Tennessee with the current expansion and I could see similar complaints coming from going to 16 teams. I've heard Bama and Ole Miss hate having playing each other. Under this alignment they'd be one of only 3 team that they'd have to play every year. Can Florida, Georgia and Auburn do without playing Tennessee every year? It might be tricky getting the votes together.

  7. #17
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    Don't think we go anywhere, but this looks like the perfect 16 team conference.
    disagree. to me, the perfect 16 team athletics conference for VT would be:

    North:
    PSU
    Pitt
    WVU
    umd

    Blue-Ridge:
    VT
    uva
    Kentucky
    Tennessee

    Carolina:
    unc
    ncsu
    Clemson
    USC-e

    South:
    UGA
    GT
    FSU
    Florida

    the top FBS public schools from PA to Florida with WVU, Kentucky and Tennessee flanking the west...it give pipe dreams a bad name, but THAT would be my perfect 16 team conference...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    July 03, 2001
    Posts
    101,198
    more reasonable to expect schools to drop intercollegiate athletics than count on them as a positive revenue source. As best I can recall, very very very few schools make money off their athletics and honestly, they shouldn't be in the business of running semi-pro leagues. Do other countries even have university sports approaching the scope of what we do? As best I can tell, even the sports/activities crazed Australians here don't do intercollegiate athletics like we do (college age kids work out with club teams).

  9. #19

    Join Date
    November 19, 1999
    Posts
    3,728
    Since it's PODS, there wouldn't be any crappy divisions. There's really not any BAD matchup situations in that scenario.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    1,514
    Some of the smaller schools - maybe. Mid to large - no. I see the mid-large investing not retracting. Look at JMU as an example. Football is a revenue stream for most.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •